Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the failure to answer questions. I think it is a systemic problem across this government. There are basically three mechanisms where we can get transparency on key issues for the Australian people. We have the questions on notice processes, which, as Senator Cash has already detailed, has not being respected by the government. Then there are the orders for production of documents, which, I must say, have also been regularly ignored. Then there is, of course, the mechanism of freedom of information, which is available to any citizen. What you often see from this government is a tendency to merge a freedom of information request lodged by a citizen, who may also be a senator at the same time, with a question on notice or with an order for production of documents. Of course, these things are not supposed to merge. They are supposed to be treated separately. But we see a deliberate corruption of these processes across the board and, by using that term, I don't mean to say that people are corrupt but I mean to say that the process is often corrupted in the sense that it is not respected for what it should be.

I have lodged, for better or worse, many questions on notice through Senator Gallagher's office on behalf of Minister Jones. These things range from detailed questions on financial advice, policy, superannuation policy and matters to do with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The government is now sitting on a key test in relation to these matters because, after yesterday's motion on this report into the ASIC deputy chair, the government will have to decide whether it will release a report that the Senate voted overwhelmingly for the government to release. We haven't called on the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to make the report public. We've called on the government through the Treasury and the Treasurer to deliver that report. It will be up to the Treasurer to comply with that order. I would say that it would be very risky territory for the Treasurer to hide behind some strange reasoning not to release a report which cost taxpayers $200,000.

Taxpayers forked out $200,000 for a secret investigation into an ASIC commissioner which was covered up by ASIC, or ASIC attempted to cover it up, at Senate estimates. Fancy that. The corporate regulator—the organisation which is required to hold Australian companies to account—is covering up an investigation into one of its own. Is there any wonder why corporate Australia regularly breaks the laws we set here in Canberra if corporate Australia doesn't take ASIC seriously, if ASIC's reputation is in the toilet and if people don't fear ASIC? We see a repeat of lawlessness, and then we see royal commissions make recommendations which are ignored.

One of the core problems here is that the law enforcement agencies are not doing their jobs and then the government of the day seeks to cover it up. This is going to be a key test, and almost all of the questions that have been asked in the Treasury portfolio since the election have not been answered properly. I refer here to question on notice No. 356, in which I asked how many meetings Minister Jones had had with stakeholders in his review of the best financial interests duty that the Treasury is conducting. I got no answer. Then, in question on notice No. 565, I asked the same minister, Minister Jones:

Is the Minister aware of the disclosures made by AustralianSuper on Wednesday 14 September 2022, in their 2022 annual members' meeting notice.

In that meeting notice, because of regulations that had been made by the government that super fund was able to cover up over $100 million in related party transactions and $1 million in payments to unions. I asked subsequent questions of the minister about whether he was aware of these huge cover-ups of key information. Again, there were no answers.

It is a very regrettable situation that the government is making policy judgements to do certain things. It is asked about them in the usual way, through the means that we have here in the chamber and through questions on notice, and the government is deciding not to provide that information. That is showing that the government holds the chamber in contempt, and it is a pattern of behaviour in which all the transparency measures are treated poorly by the government.

There was a long and twisted debate about the creation of an integrity commission, which I personally have favoured the establishment of for many years. A lot of people made the argument to have an integrity commission as if there were no other integrity measures or no other transparency measures as part of our system of government. One of the great things about our system of government is that we have the committee system and we have Senate estimates. We have these transparency measures, and if they're treated poorly they will be eroded over time. Therefore, the creation of an integrity commission will have less power or less capacity to improve our system in the long run if the other measures are watered down.

A government needs to respect the institutions that it inherits over time. The failure to address questions that are asked through proper means and methods is hugely regrettable. Always pointing the finger at past practices is not a very good answer. I'm sure that there have been cases in the past where governments have not answered questions properly, and I think that is hugely regrettable. Governments who want to preach to the electorate that they are going to be the paragon of virtue and the paragon of integrity should, of course, hold themselves to that standard. It's only reasonable that that's what an opposition would seek a government to do. If we are asking reasonable questions in accordance with the rules, they should be answered within a reasonable time frame. At least the substance of the answers should be given, rather than fobbed off.

It concerns me that answers aren't given. It also concerns me that, when answers are given, they're not actually given, but the greatest concern I have here is the meshing together of processes which aren't supposed to be meshed together. If I put a question on notice to the minister, I'm not supposed to get an answer back saying, 'We've got an FOI request from you.' They're supposed to be treated as if they are not intersecting with one another. Regularly, we're receiving correspondence back from ministers, saying, 'We have your FOI request, even though you've asked a question on notice.' Of course, I've asked the FOI as Citizen Bragg, not as Senator Bragg, so I wouldn't expect those things to overlap. We hope that the government can do better here. It's an important part of the institution, which we don't want to see eroded over time.